Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 4 Oct 2009 04:20 ajay wrote: [snip screed] Whatever you say, fruitloop. Feel free to fade back into obscurity when you return to taking your medications.
From: ajay on 4 Oct 2009 05:49 On Oct 4, 1:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ajay wrote: > > [snip screed] > > Whatever you say, fruitloop. > > Feel free to fade back into obscurity when you return to taking your > medications. Editors of various journals have published my work, as after peer review found correct. If you think otherwise, you are most welcome to CONTRADICT in the journals in scientiifc way. ASK ASK Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to clarify, matter will be over. original issue You are mistaken, read complete posting. The correspondence on DQ10345A between author (Ajay Sharma), Editor, Dr Drake and Board Member is of 44 pages, which cannot be pasted here. If someone wants I can email ajay.shar...(a)rediffmail.com (i) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 is subtracting equations wrongly for willful to contradict my work which is against ethics of science. hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1) hf* = Mc2 + hf (2) .. In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS and RHS is subtracted from RHS. 8th class students knows. Thus right answer is (8th class student gives) 0 = hf/A-hf or A=1 In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from RHS (hf/A hf). (ii) But Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: Ignores basic rule to subtract LHS from LHS (which are equal in this case i.e. hf*- hf*=0 ). Dr Drake only subtracts RHS from RHS, he does not subtract LHS from LHS , as it does not suit his willful thinking. Dr drake writes difference of eq.(1) and eq.(2) (technically, so called cyclic process) Left over energy or difference (non-zero) of LHSs = hf(1/A-1) Then he incorrectly explains various values of A (A<1, A>1). It is done in his Email dated 19 June 2008. There are also many other elementary mistakes in his report. The total correspondence consists of 44 pages. (iii) When I pointed out the mistakes, he on 11 July 2008 Dr Drake wrote IT IS PRIVATE CORRESPONECE AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE. From office of Physical Review A, American Physical Society, New York, on official capacity NO CORREPONDCE can be private. For doing private correspondence one should retire from official capacity, then one is free to write anything. ASK Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to clarify (iv) As you have written about my work , my work is published in peer review journals. All my research is available at www.AjayOnLine.us and in book Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till date none has so done. AJAY SHARMA
From: Robert Higgins on 4 Oct 2009 06:42 On Oct 4, 5:49 am, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 4, 1:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ajay wrote: > > > [snip screed] > > > Whatever you say, fruitloop. > > > Feel free to fade back into obscurity when you return to taking your > > medications. > > Editors of various journals have published my work, as after peer > review found correct. It seems you are referring to "open access" journals, for which it is quite a stretch to call "peer reviewed." I looked at the link to your work provided by Dono in this thread: http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/553.pdf The "paper" does not even meet the basic requirements of an elementary school composition in English. Among other things, you mispelled "Generalization" in the TITLE. The level of "review" of theis "paper" is borne out by the "Received 4 March, accepted 6 March". Hate to tell you buddy, I am happy as can be if they review my papers in 6 weeks - often is it more like 6 months. You obviously knew that this "journal" is published by the University of Lodz in Poland, where they are likely to be even less fluent in English than you are. To write an entire paper that is a direct attack on a single person is despicable (even more so because your "reasoning" is laughably inept), and completely contrary to the etiquette of science. Worse than that, you ACKNOWLEDGE the same poor sap for HELPING you, after you claim that he lied about his academic affiliation. You are seriously disturbed, and should seek medical attention right away.
From: ajay on 4 Oct 2009 07:51 On Oct 4, 3:42 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 4, 5:49 am, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 1:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ajay wrote: > > > > [snip screed] > > > > Whatever you say, fruitloop. > > > > Feel free to fade back into obscurity when you return to taking your > > > medications. > > > Editors of various journals have published my work, as after peer > > review found correct. > > It seems you are referring to "open access" journals, for which it is > quite a stretch to call "peer reviewed." I looked at the link to your > work provided by Dono in this thread:http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/553.pdf > > The "paper" does not even meet the basic requirements of an elementary > school composition in English. Among other things, you mispelled > "Generalization" in the TITLE. The level of "review" of theis "paper" > is borne out by the "Received 4 March, accepted 6 March". Hate to > tell you buddy, I am happy as can be if they review my papers in 6 > weeks - often is it more like 6 months. > > You obviously knew that this "journal" is published by the University > of Lodz in Poland, where they are likely to be even less fluent in > English than you are. To write an entire paper that is a direct attack > on a single person is despicable (even more so because your > "reasoning" is laughably inept), and completely contrary to the > etiquette of science. Worse than that, you ACKNOWLEDGE the same poor > sap for HELPING you, after you claim that he lied about his academic > affiliation. You are seriously disturbed, and should seek medical > attention right away. ------- As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different in different countries. Do you think scientific achievements of Poland are nothing as their first language is not English? (i) The main paper is at http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2006_4/2006_4_351.pdf It was received on 14 Feb. 2006 and accepted on 20 May 2006. It took nearly 3 months for review, before it was recommended by an expert. SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DONT SHOW YOUR FOOLISHNESS HERE. I have published in countries like USA, ENGLAND, CANADA both in journals and conferences. (ii) Then some half wit person showed his foolishness and wrote to Editor CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS, University of Lodz, Editor knew he was wrong. Then Editor contacted me for explanation which I sent and was readily accepted. It is right. (iii) Let me again add, Einstein's Sep. 1905 is true under SPECIAL CONDITIONS only not under GENERAL CONDITIONS. It is justified in paper. Hence I critically analyzed the same. Is it sin to question Einstein? You are welcome to CONTRADICT the same, journal. When you will read the papers, only you will understand and appreciate them. (iv) Coming back to original aim Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000, Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong. AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
From: Dono. on 4 Oct 2009 12:47
On Oct 4, 8:52 am, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > (i) The main paper is at > > http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2006_4/2006_4_351.pdf > And the rebuttal is in the same journal: http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/549.pdf You never answered the question: why do you try to push the SAME paper all over the internet? |